[llvm-dev] LLVM Developers Meeting JIT BoF -- Request for Topics of Interest

[Gaier, Bjoern via llvm-dev]

Hey Lang,

Not surprising I guess – but lately I’m much interested into MaterializationUnit and MaterializationResponsibility xD
Not only because I’m total stuck there again, but also because I wonder what is possible with it besides from what I failed to do.

I know that this might be to much for the BoF, but might be nice for the documentation.

Kind greetings
Björn

From: Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com>
Sent: 06 October 2020 04:29
To: Andres Freund <andres at anarazel.de>
Cc: Praveen Velliengiri <praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com>; LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>; Geoff Levner <glevner at gmail.com>; Christian Schafmeister <meister at temple.edu>; Stefan Gränitz <stefan.graenitz at gmail.com>; guangnan he <gnhe2009 at gmail.com>; Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake at gmail.com>; Gaier, Bjoern <Bjoern.Gaier at horiba.com>; Jared Wyles <jared.wyles at gmail.com>; Vivien Millet <vivien.millet at gmail.com>; Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com>
Subject: Re: LLVM Developers Meeting JIT BoF -- Request for Topics of Interest

Hi All,

I've listed the current topics of interest below, along with some notes on each. We only have 30 minutes so we'll barely scratch the surface of these during the BoF itself. My main aims are for you to meet each other, identify potential areas of collaboration, identify things that I can do to unblock you, and get the ball rolling on some conversations that we can continue on the mailing lists. It looks like we'll have an opportunity to set up impromptu meet-ups too (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpbefagv6Ts) so if you want to do a deeper dive on a topic area we can set one or more of those up -- just let me know in this thread.

Topics so far:

A very brief status update on OrcV2 and JITLink.

Future / Potential use-cases for the JIT.
  -- LLDB, the Swift interpreter, REPLs.

Compile time improvements
  -- Experimenting with / performance-testing custom JIT pipelines (any volunteers?)
  -- Compile-time improvements for the existing pipeline. This is probably a broad community project, but JIT users might have interesting workloads / results to contribute.
  -- Hiding compile times with concurrency.

Profiling, Debugging, PGO
  -- Profiling and Debugging support (especially via JITLink)
  -- How do we integrate PGO (any volunteers to experiment with this?)

Reoptimization
  -- What it is.
  -- Any volunteers to start working on API design and experiments?
  -- Is resource management a problem (do we need to free unoptimized code) and if so how do we make it safe?

I'll add another of my own topics in here:

Documentation
  -- What would make life better for Orc beginners?
  -- What would make life better for Orc experts?
  -- What would make it easier for you to contribute to Orc?
  -- Any volunteers to help with the documentation effort?

Looking forward to seeing you all on Thursday.

-- Lang.

On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 11:21 AM Andres Freund <andres at anarazel.de<mailto:andres at anarazel.de>> wrote:
Hi,

On 2020-10-02 10:44:43 -0700, Lang Hames wrote:
> Sounds good to me. I think there are two sub-topics here:
> (1) JIT specifics. E.g. What default optimization pipelines should we
> provide in the JIT? The standard 0/1/2/3/s options, or would it make sense
> to develop something JIT specific?

Yea. I've some hopes for "new PM" making it easier to have maintainable
and customizable pipelines. I've not played around with it too much -
largely because there's no C API last time I checked.



> (2) General compile time improvements. Everyone will benefit from compile
> time improvements, but JIT clients are likely to be extra sensitive to it.
> Have we identified any problem areas or redundancies that would be of
> interest to the broader LLVM community, and that we could solicit help in
> fixing.

I'd guess that some of the things that can be done to significantly
improve JIT performance aren't generally applicable to most other uses
of LLVM. E.g. the overhead of redoing the same analyses for code gen is
mostly an issue on higher optimization levels, and I assume that a large
portion of e.g. clang users using -O3 will do LTO. Where a split between
optimization and code gen seems necessary in number of cases.


> > Possibly also related to LLJIT design - having LLJIT first generate
> > minimally optimized code and then, while that is in use, doing optimization
> > and optimized codegen concurrently, would be neat. It feels like that'd
> > fit well into LLJIT, given that it already provides things like
> > background compile threads.
>
>
> Absolutely. Supporting this use-case was one of the motivations for the
> concurrency support in OrcV2. It's doable at the moment, but it requires a
> fair bit of manual work on the client's part. Implementation and API design
> in this area seem like good topics.

Cool.

Greetings,

Andres Freund
Als GmbH eingetragen im Handelsregister Bad Homburg v.d.H. HRB 9816, USt.ID-Nr. DE 114 165 789 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Hiroshi Nakamura, Dr. Robert Plank, Markus Bode, Heiko Lampert, Takashi Nagano, Junichi Tajika, Ergin Cansiz.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20201006/6f7c95e6/attachment.html>